Every time I hear someone on TV use the phrase "mainstream media," I get the feeling what they really mean is, "Someone on another network who doesn't agree with me."
Next time you hear someone say "mainstream media," substitute my phrase and see if it adds any further context to what the person is saying.
I should provide some context: It also seems to me that people who complain about the "mainstream media" are using an outdated concept. Today, you can find news, or news-like programming, from about any perspective. As a result, the "mainstream" doesn't exist like it did 20 or 30 years ago.
Yet, with all this information out there, there are plenty of people who try to build up their credibility by saying they are telling you something that they say everyone else is ignoring.
Odds are, they aren't. They are just emphasizing something that agrees with their particular way of thinking.
2 comments:
Today's comments coming from Fostoria public library.
Mainstream is a straw figure for, essentially, Fox type/ AM radio conservatives (too broad a definition maybe), to describe, like you said, anything not what they approve of or are.
The best news is long-form interviewing or stories such as C-Span or Public Television or non-commercial access television. I like MSNBC or Bloomberg for general news.
A person should get their news from print media in addition to radio and TV.
Editorial news programs or viewer grabbing news should be scaled back on all channels.
JCARP
You said a mouthful, but I agree there's too much punditry on television. I think it's blurring the line between news and commentary.
Post a Comment